1947-06-12, #2: Doctors' Trial (mid morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
WILHELM BEIGLBOECK — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION — Continued
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before proceeding with the examination of these records, I might add that I have only two more charts to go over with the defendants, and then perhaps three or four other questions which raise questions and my cross examination will be completed. I understand that Dr. Steinbauer has redirect examination of the defendant. In any event, the Prosecution has now Dr. Ivy here in Nurenberg. Dr. Ivy is the Vice President of the University of Illinois and performed tests with sea-water, and is qualified to testify as an expert witness on the part of the Prosecution. Inasmuch as Dr. Ivy's connections and associations in the States require that he return on next Tuesday, the Prosecution respectfully requests that we be allowed to call Dr. Ivy out of order and have him take the stand this afternoon at 1:30, inasmuch as it is anticipated that his direct examination will take a considerable the length of time, and in addition thereto it is anticipated that defense counsel will have a considerable number of questions to ask in cross examination. So, if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal, I should like to call Dr. Ivy on direct examination at 1:30 this afternoon.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, for purely formal reasons, I should like to speak against the calling of an expert at this stage of the proceedings. As far as I know, Dr. Ivy was in Nurnberg on the 20th of January, during the prosecutions case. He could have been examined as an expert at that time by the prosecution and, of course, I think it important considering certain occurrences that the matter be investigated by an objective third party. I will not object particularly because, in my opinion Dr. Ivy is only a cross examination witness for Schaefer for whom he has given an affidavit, but I ask permission that, instead of the written opinion of Professor Glatzel, which is in my document book, I be allowed to call this expert too as a witness so that he can comment on the material submitted by Professor Ivy. I was not able to give him this material before when he wrote his opinion because I did not have it in my possession, but I merely gave him some tables supplied to me by Professor Beiglboeck. The opinion of Glatzel I shall not submit for the time being, but shall ask for permission to call this expert as a witness here personally, and then the prosecution will also have an opportunity to examine him so that we will have two experts.
THE PRESIDENT: When will this witness be available, counsel?
DR. STEINBAUER: I believe, if he is asked to come by telegram is in Flensburg, in Northern Germany, near Kiel-I think he could be here in a day and a half.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might state in that connection that Professor Volhard has already appeared as an expert in the sea-water experiments for the defense counsel. I have no objection to further experts if he wishes to call them, however.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which can be determined later. The Tribunal will afford the defendants reasonable opportunity to call witnesses who can be of assistance to the Tribunal in determining these issues.
While the Tribunal is of course reluctant to interrupt the examination of a witness, particularly one of the defendants, it appears to the Tribunal that Dr. Ivy, being here, should be heard and the request of the prosecution will be accordingly granted. Dr. Ivy may take the stand at 1:30 this afternoon.
At that time, the Tribunal will sit, as it did yesterday, from 1:30 to 5:00, and will observe those same hours tomorrow, and will sit certainly Saturday morning and possibly Saturday afternoon, in order to complete the testimony of this witness.
Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: I wish to turn to Case #39. I respectfully request the Tribunal to mark it please.
Would you kindly read the subject's name from the top of Chart A-39, Professor Beiglboeck?
A: Johann Jablonski.
Q: What is his age here, please?
A: 49.
Q: Was a man 49 years of age a suitable subject to be used in an experiment?
A: I remember this man very well. I did not want to take him into the experiment, but then he wanted to remain at the station and I assigned him to the experiment with 500 cc of sea-water and the LF probably means Lactoflavin, and he was in the experiment for three days altogether. He lost 2 kilograms.
Q: Well, a man 49 years of age didn't meet with the qualifications of the Luftwaffe, did he?
A: I have already said I did not want to take him in the first place, but he wanted to stay there and I accepted him into the experiment symbolically, as it were. It was an experiment which meant practically nothing. During these two days the man lost about 2 kilograms or, in three days, rather, and then he went back to his original weight.
Q: Did he receive 500 cc of sea-water?
A: Yes.
Q: For a period of three days?
A: Three days, yes.
Q: Was that sea-water treated with the Berka method or was that plain sea water?
A: That was Berka and Lactoflavin.
Q: Due to the age of this subject, why didn't you use him in the Schaefer experiment? That is, subject him to drinking seawater treated by the Schaefer method? He would have been a more fit subject to have drunk the Schaefer water inasmuch as the Schaefer water was harmless.
A: I said it was not my intention to keep him in the experiment. He was taken out immediately. He would have probably lost much more weight with the Schaefer water than in this symbolic experiment, and besides he drank water in between. One can see from the end to the 3rd he dropped from 40.2 to 40 kilograms. That is, in effect, he actually did not participate in the experiment at all.
Q: Did this man become ill at all during the course of these experiments?
A: No.
Q: Did his condition become below normal?
A: I didn't understand.
Q: Was he below normal at any time during the experiment?
A: No he was unchanged.
Q: Then, why was it necessary to give him a sterofundin injection, together with glucose and calcium?
A: I did that more or less regularly because that was the best method to break off. I treated this case very, very carefully. He was in the experiment for three days, then he was put into the easiest group.
Lactoflavin was an aid for him. Third, I broke off with all possible precautions. It was not because he needed it, but to help him.
Q: The easiest group of the experiments actually was those that were drinking the Schaefer water, isn't that true?
A: But they were in the experiment for 12 days. If I had let him go without eating for 12 days he certainly would have suffered more than he did in this three day experiment. Actually the experiment lasted only for one day. I did not want to take him in the beginning.
Q: Let us turn now to Case #40. Will the Tribunal kindly mark that, please? Here we have, on Chart A-40, an obvious erasure of the name of the subject. Do you see that, Doctor? I have been able to decipher that to read Ferdinand Daniel. Would that be correct?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: How old was that young man?
A: 16, it says here.
Q: Did you have the consent of his parents?
A: I have already said, neither in this case nor in the case of any other patient, did. I negotiate with the parents.
Q: What did he do to be branded Asocial at the age of 16?
A: I have already testified about that. I said that I do not know the causes of this classification.
Q: Let us look at his charts more specifically, Doctor. What was his weight on the first day of the experiments. That is, the 31st day of August?
A: 52.5, the first day was 52.7.
Q: Was this young man subjected to 1,000 cc of sea-water?
A: Yes.
Q: What was his weight at the end of the experiment?
A: 47.9.
Q: What was his weight when you discharged him and left Dachau?
A: 50.7.
Q: Approximately four pounds underweight at that time?
A: Not quite.
Q: Now, the water balances—that is, the urinary output and the intakes which are indicated on these charts A-40 and B-40 show that he did not take the entire 1,000cc because the effect of what he did take—that is, perhaps he got normal water—that on the middle of the fifty day, nevertheless, it was necessary for you to support his heart action by an injection of sterofundin, glucose and calcium, wasn't it?
A: I broke off a large part of the experiments by intravenous injections of liquids and for the reasons which I have already given. Because suddenly the amount of blood in the circulation is increased, not as a treatment but as a support, a precautionary measure, I administered a circulation: and not because he needed it. One con see from his pulse rate very clearly that he was quite normal.
Q: How many aviators did the German Luftwaffe have aged 16? Pilots?
A: Pilots of that age? There were none, only assistants, so called A A gunners.
Q: You mean you had boys of 16 years of age in gun crews in airplanes?
A: 15 to 17 year olds worked anti-aircraft guns in large numbers in 1944.
Q: They were working anti-aircraft guns, were they flying in the planes?
A: No.
Q: It wouldn't have been very likely that a young boy of 16 years of age would be isolated on a raft at sea as far as the Luftwaffe was concerned?
A: That was unlikely, yes, but in the case of a young person, of course, one would expect that he would suffer less from the medical point of view. A 16-year old would be able to hold out better than a 20 year old.
Q: Is that why you permitted a boy of 16 to be subjected to these experiments, or didn't you concern yourself with his age?
A: He was quite well developed. In my opinion 16 years is not a reason why a person can't drink sea water for a few days. You can see the experiment was stopped very suddenly on the 5th day. The entire loss of weight—he drank water in the meantime — for example, from the third to fourth day not only doesn't he lose anything but he gains weight. The total loss of weight in the experiment was 4 kilos.
Q: Did you perform any surgery on this subject on 6th of September?
A: No.
Q: Was it necessary to give him a series of injections, or what are those penciled notations below the black line in the middle of page 40, under the date "6th Sept."?
A: These words under the black line mean after the experiment was broken off, he was given water several times in doses of 200, one, two, three, four, that is he took a liter of water in doses of 200 cc. every hour or every two hours. That was not infusion, that was the amount he drank.
Q: What was the room temperature of the room in which the subjects were kept?
A: I can't tell you at the moment. It was the beginning of September or of August, and probably not very hot.
Q: Does the temperature at which a room is kept have any bearing on the outcome of the experiment?
A: Of course the temperature has a certain influence as far as there is perspiration high temperature has an influence. When secretion stops, this influence is no longer important.
Q: Did you attempt to keep this room at a temperature simulating temperatures that may be found at sea?
A: In my opinion temperature at sea varies considerably. It depends on whether one is at the equator or near Greenland.
Q: Would you repeat that again. I don't believe I understood you.
A: I said temperature at sea varies considerably. It makes a big difference whether one is in distress at sea on the equator or whether one is near Greenland.
Q: To simulate temperature would be necessary only for a very specific case. Here we just took the temperatures that happened to be.
Q: Did you consider the temperature of a room had no bearing on the results of effects of the experimentation in sea water research?
A: Of course the temperature has a certain influence, but it cannot be done in practice any other way than to carry out the experiments in a room.
Q: It is pretty warm in August and September in the area of Dachau, is it not?
A: The end of August or beginning of September it was not so warm anymore. It was the beginning of fall.
Q: Well, the climate in Dachau is similar to the climate here in Nurnberg, isn't it?
A: I presume so. I don't have any exact information on the subject.
Q: Did you make any effort to install fans or to put in cooling apparatus in the barracks or the experimental station wherein the experiments on these 44 subjects were performed?
A: There was ventilation constantly. All the windows were open and besides the temperature was not very high at the time of the experiments. It is possible when the people arrived, which was the beginning of August, it might have been warm for awhile, but when the experiments proper started the temperature was quite bearable, no special heat.
Q: We have seen in most of these charts that you had a 7-day or 8-day, or perhaps a 6-day observation period of each subject prior to the commencement of the experiment, and during that observation period the experimental subjects received additional rations. In addition to that what physical routine did the experimental subjects go through?
A: The subjects were not given any further treatment. They were given this just this diet; we made urine tests and sometimes blood tests; they could move freely, go walking in the courtyard; they had complete freedom of movement within our area.
Q: Well, now, on the weight charts we have been considering here for the last day or two, you show the weights of the experimental subjects prior to the 7-day observation period, wherein they received additional rations. What can you tell us as to the weights of those subjects as compared to the weight, or the normal weight of a person of their particular height and stature, were they of average weight, underweight or overweight?
A: For the most part they were within the normal deviations from the average. I will read that: One was one meter 69, 63.5 kilo.
That is quite normal. The next was 169, 64 kilo. The next was 160, with 56 kilos. The next 168 with 62 kilos. The next was 167, with 61 kilos. On the whole perhaps there were a few who were a little below average, but only a very few, a very few exceptions.
Q: How would their weights or sizes compare to that of a Luftwaffe aviator, were they of the normal German aviator type?
A: I believe that in the year 1944 these weights were quite the average weights in Germany.
Q: Now, these men averaged about 60 kilos, that is striking an average, isn't that so, or about 120 pounds?
A: Yes. But you must consider that these are rather short persons; I have just given you the height. They are about 160. Some of them are even under 160, one 157, 159, one 162, one 160. Some of them were taller, but the average was quite noticeably shorter. It makes a difference whether a person is 159 cent. tall or 180 in regard to the normal weight.
Q: Could a person underweight endure a sea water experiment better than a person of normal weight?
A: Most of them had normal weight or even increased under the special diet. At least their weight was in such proportion to their height that they could endure the experiment.
Q: For instance, could an overweight like myself endure a sea water experiment as well as a person of normal weight?
A: I do not consider it impossible that it would be worse for him. Someone who is much overweight has the water in his body much more firmly and suffers more from a lack of water than a thinner person, that is a fact.
MR. HARDY: I have no further question to put to Dr. Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess 5 minutes until the Tribunal is re-arranged.
MR. HARDY: Does Dr. Steinbauer have any questions about the charts that he wants to ask while the Tribunal is here?
THE PRESIDENT: I should have asked that. I will ask counsel for defendant Beiglboeck if he has any redirect examination of the defendant on these charts we have just been looking at.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will proceed with that matter here.